Just Posted: Nikon D3200 in-depth Review

We've just posted our in-depth, 20-page review of the Nikon D3200 entry-level DSLR. The D3200 builds on the the company's line of simple, accessible beginners' DSLRs by adding a higher-resolution screen, boosting its continuous shooting rate and adding details such as a microphone jack and infrared remote sockets. And then, of course, there's the 24MP CMOS sensor, making it by far the highest pixel-count camera in its class. Does its impressive specification translate into class-leading performance? Read our review to find out.

Comments

Recently I bought D3200. The images taken in the camera lacks color depth and more brightness even in AWB : auto and AUTO mode too. What should be the problem? Do I need to take the camera to the service center?

hi Maniabbas, The Nikon D3200 is the best for beginners because it's easy to use and provide a great image quality better then all Canon cameras under 700$, it's have 24.2 MP and large sensor, and it's DSLR (digital camera) this mean it's make a great image quality.see the article in my profile about Nikon D3200 image quality with example of different shoots, so you can compare with yours.i think you just don't know how use it, try use the GUIDE MODE in your camera because it's offers beginners help and instruction. if it's don't work see the service center.

Yep, bought one 3 months ago and haven't looked back since. I think it knocks spots off the D5100. The slow-mo vids are brill and the wi-fi feature works brilliantly with my iPad. And 24MP against 16MP? No contest!

Please give me your vote on my review site at http://www.squidoo.com/nikon-d3200-vs-d5100 - I've got a poll going and want to see if everyone agrees.

Every time there is a full review by our good folks at DPR, I click my way fast to the conclusion page and scroll down even faster to the first line underneath Conclusion-Pro:

Good detail at low ISOs (with good lenses).

Now considering how unimaginably polite the DPR reviewers are, the above line is nasty nasty stuff.

There is a relationship between a camera and its asking price and the expectations of those photographers who buy at that price. I think tech is growing so fast and there are so many products about that most photographers' expectation at this price is good detail at high ISOs( with not so good lenses ).

The other soft contradiction is that most people with good Nikon lenses would probably want a better body (The pun completely unintended).

Why would I want 24 MP in such a crumby body? Seriously, I go travelling with my cameras and laptop and 24 MP is just going to bog everything down and require more storage space. What's wrong with 16 MP? The difference to IQ is negligible. Scratch the MP ratrace and give me what I really want -- better low light performance and faster frame rates. If I ever want 24 MP, which I don't, I'll get a high end body.

Shoot small JPG, and you get what you want. 16MP is sooo 2010. Welcome to 2012.And 4 fps is really more than enough for travel camera. 4fps and 6fps is more or less the same (same ratio as 16MP and 24MP).

The raw files from this very site are sized as fallows.D5100 (16 megapixels) 16.5 MBD7000 (16 megapixels) 19.3 MBD3200 (24 Megapixels) 20.2 MB

I fail to see how the D3200 files will be bogging anything down more than a 16 megapixel camera. If such a small differnce in file size causes your laptop trouble, it was time to upgrade it a couple years ago.

If you have the best laptop available then it will have no trouble with 24 megapixel files. The belief that the same sensor with less megapixels will produce less noise is simply false. No matter how many people on the internet think it's true.

As far as fps goes, until a small DSLR is released that isn't a cheap entry level model, you will never get one that has more than the minimum fps as that is a key incentive used to get people to move up to the next highest model.

Obviously the same sensor with less megapixels will produce the same amount of noise. The point is that they could have used the area available on the sensor to make a different sensor altogether with larger pixels that produces less noise. Sensor advances can go both ways -- more MP or better high ISO noise. The laws of physics dictate that if you reduce one the other can go up. I'd much prefer movements towards high ISO noise capabilities.

Larger pixels don't automatically mean less noise. For example the D800 and the D4 has equal noise preformance or at least so close it's equal for practical purposes. The idea that noise preformance is being sacrificed for megapixels is an internet myth.

By ISO 400 any discernible increase in detail is smeared away by noise reduction which is required because noise is readily evident even at ISO 100. Large grained noise too. It is very blotchy. This sensor is really easily out performed by the 16mp Sony sensor above ISO 400. I think its a pity Pentax will use this senor in there flagship model.

This is simply not true. The D3200 has about the same high ISO ability of the D7000. I know it doesn't seem like it when looking at JPEGs in the Comparison Widget (what happened there we'll never know) but it does.

This camera gets 1% less than the Sony HX20V in the final conclusion. Still the image quality is clearly much better than the Sony's. Not surprising, as the Sony is a compact camera. It just doesn't make sense to use this percentage system IM(not so) HO.

It's more like the percent of possible performance/handling/features for this class of camera at this point in time. If it were golf, different categories would be playing from different tees, and the course would be getting longer and tougher all the time.

How did DP review come to the conclusion that the D3200 competes with the Canon T3?

The T3 is nothing more than a bare bones low entry level DSLR for consumers who've never owned a DSLR and don't know how to buy one.

To anyone who wants a T3 I say "You really should buy a $1300 camera....Because by the time you figure out how to use the camera you will realize that it's less camera than you want and you'll end up spending another $800 for a T3i sooner rather than later."

Regardless of any shortcomings some may find in the D3200, it far outclasses the T3.

I think the D3200 would appeal more to the kind of photographer who might buy a Canon T3i or T4i. With it's higher resolution and lower price point it'll certainly give those cameras a run for the money.

If I didn't already own a bagfull of Canon glass, I'd give this camera serious consideration. And if the recent trend of Canon and Nikon continues, I may dump that glass and switch to Nikon.

Well yes it's the same low end/low featured body kicking around for years. Bar some gimmicks and video bits added not much has changed bar the sensor.Shockingly the T3 actually has a DOF preview (have to menu dive to assign it though), can do HSS with a dedicated flash, and exposure bracketing. believe it or not it's actually better featured than the Nikon

I think the problem is that Nikon releases have been breaking new ground while Canon just keeps releasing conservative updates. So in an effort to not appear biased to Nikon DPR is down playing Nikon's recent efforts and talking up Canon to make them appear equal. But all they have ended up doing with that is strategy is appearing biased toward Canon.

Is seems DPR may have made the mistake many members on the site have, thinking saying everything is just as good is an unbiased approach when what really is unbiased is just telling the truth.

DPR didn't come up with the idea that D3200 and T3 are competing cameras, so you should stop accusing the reviewer of making that up. All manufacturers have clearly differentiated models in their line-ups, and these two cameras occupy the entry-level spot in their respective manufacturers' line-up. They market the cameras as beginner models, which they certainly are, feature-wise. Just because one camera isn't competitive with respect to some specs, that doesn't mean they aren't competing for the same buyers in the market place.It is the features, performance (speed, AF etc.), build quality and ergonomics that determines a camera's position in the market (entry-level, mid level, enthusiast, semi-pro, pro), not its image quality. A pro body with bad IQ is still a pro body.I agree that the T3 isn't competitive, but it's still competing with D3200 and all other entry-level models out there. Don't accuse DPR of misinformation, blame Nikon for marketing D3200 as an entry-level model.

Or blame Canon for trying to clean up the crumbs at the very bottom of the entry level DSLR segment. The D3200 competes with a T4i / 650D in specs and build quality. That Canon has the desire to mop up any excesses by offering a bare bones model below their normal entry level is a point that perhaps should be noted in the review.

The thing missed in all this drama about megapixels is that the D3200 is only the first new crop DSLR from Nikon this year and wont exist in a vacuum. It is likely Nikon is moving its entire line of crop cameras to 24 megapixels.

Does D3200 holds the mirror up all the time in live view mode, and doesn't have to drop it down to reset the shutter and make the exposure ??

I couldn't find that informatin in the review. (for comparison, see below)

On Nikon D3100 review, page 15: Live View and Movie Mode:"One genuinely useful characteristic is that, like the D7000, the D3100 holds the mirror up all the time in live view mode, and doesn't have to drop it down to reset the shutter and make the exposure. As a result, you can use live view as a proxy for mirror lockup to minimize vibration when shooting off a tripod, in concert with either the remote release or the self timer....."

The widget's weird... Uh, why does DPR not classify Pentax's K-x and K-r as entry-level cameras? The succession, I believe, goes from K-m -> K-x -> K-r. They never went side-by-side for one model to go above the other. The D3200 by all means should be comparable to the K-r and K-x too, I think, since Pentax never made 2 entry-level cameras at the same time span.

But I think across the board camera manufacturers should be including some built in Wi-Fi or 3G or some connectivity. It is a real pain to have to pull your images off the memory card and then downsize them and upload to the internets.

At least nikon is trying to take a step in that direction. Samsung is already doing it, but I will never buy a samsung camera because it's samsung.

First of all D3200 is not an evolution it is a revolution. Image quality is stunning. If you won't or can't buy a D800 (which is extraordinary) then get the D3200 which is really capable of producing very, very good images seen from a technical perspective.

Regarding the comment "you can always use the 18-55mm as a paperweight" - this is a downright ridiculus comment. The 18-55mm is really good for the price and can easily be used with the D3200 for very good results. Of course better and more expensive lenses will give better results, but the 18-55mm is really a lot of value for next to no money.

The revolution is that previously you had to pay 7 grand to get this kind of resolution and now the cheapest camera in the lineup has it. Further the D3200 indicates that the rest of Nikon's crop camera's will have 24 megapixels as well. Changing your entire line except one highly specialized camera to high res sensors and setting a new standard for the minimum IQ in DSLRs seems pretty revolutionary to me.

Josh....About a decade ago when I was shooting with a 6 MPX Canon 10D, the 7 K$ Canon 1DS was an astounding 11 MPX!! At the same time I was shooting in the studio with a 22MPX Imacon back on a RZ67, which cost twice what the 1DS was selling for at the time. Now 30mpx is the low end for medium format and the top end is at 80 MPX and could soon go higher.

Every few years, what was top of the line in MPX works it's way down into the entry level mainstream while the top of the line high MPX cameras reach ever higher resolutions. Nothing remarkable about that. Whats revolutionary is the difference in MPX between the entry and top levels is less...in 2002 the top canon camera had twice the MPX as the entry level,(6MPX:11MPX) now the top canon has only about 20% more (19MPX:22MPX). The D800 only has 50% more than the D3200 (24MPX:36MPX) Whats revolutionary is the price for the top end;3k for 36 MPX!!! More than 50% more MPX than canons flagship, for fewer $$$s! Thats revolutionary!

Interesting statistics reveals that at the last 50 challenges here Canon won 23 first, 20 second and 21 third places. ... Nikon 13 first, 15 second and 9 third places followed by Sony with5 first, 2 second and 4 third positions. Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Leica & Fujifilm has combined 7 first, 11 second and 14 third positions ...right! So, seems to me that Canon is the brand of choice between those who can take really good pictures ...the rest ..have a break guys ...have a Kit-Kat ;)))

Sorry but I don't agree with your conclusion!You should also take in account the losers and what cameras were they using. With Canon having the largest market share you can expect that most entrants and respectively losers also used Canon. So you can equally say that Canon is the choice of those that are rubbish at taking pictures.So basically stick to photography and leave statistics to mathematicians.

You may also check market share of above DSLRs. Roughly the same results you get. MS may also get you to the above conclusion, if you want so. One thing is sure: Canon should do a lot to protect that market share. And this brand creativity index: get serious...

...the point I am trying to make is that NO one is forcing the consumer to chose a certain brand over another. After all the decision everyone makes when choosing a camera is based on the cameras capabilities or the system behind that brand. Cameras like D3200 does not inspire much confidence with a very poor basket of features and relying on cheap tricks. The modern consumer is smarter those days Nikon ..take note of that !

So the D3200 at 24 mp is over a full stop better at high ISO ability than the E-PL3 with 3 EV better DR. So given the same aperture, you'll be able to shoot at a lower ISO on the D3200. So the D3200 doesn't have as many cheesy Art Filters and slightly slower LiveView performance, but a much sharper 920 K LCD than the E-PL3.

It's frankly shocking that DPR is pushing a slippery little grip-less camera with a 3 year old sensor (same as the E-PL1) over a new DSLR with NEX-7 type IQ, access to over 140 Nikkors (and countless third party lenses), and an optical VF and yes, LiveView, if you must.

For pete sake, marike, please do let it go. And please shut up. It seems almost as if the heat got to you.

I have come here to read the user comments, but the comment section of the review is literally flooded by your deranged mumblings. Which are of no value to anybody. And it makes impossible to find the *real* *user/owner* opinions on the camera.

MARIKE, the guys must be very much ashamed by now. Yes it was a very much unfounded statement, what you exaggerated too much by now. Oh yes and you are right. you may add the whole conlusion section as not at all unbiased. Nice piece of propaganda. Folks, get your own conclusion from other sites.

Dxomark scores are not the only criteria to judge a camera. Dxomark site itself says you shouldn't buy a cameras based on their scores. Most entry-level consumers don't even shoot RAW, so Dxomark for them is pretty irrelevant. AF, white-balance, lens, and metering might make far bigger difference to p&s upgraders than Dxomark RAW scores. What if they shoot in liveview mode? D3200 would be a bad camera for them then, regardless of dxomark scores. You have been told this now a few times, but for some reason it doesn't seem to get into your head.

Someone has to point out the things that the review doesn't say. Where I live people have the right to express themselves and debate topics. If that bothers you, oh well.

@ET2 DxOMark give a general idea of the IQ performance of a camera. The individual scores are not as useful, but their analysis of IQ parameters (High ISO, DR and Color Depth) can be a rough guide for sensor capabilities and image quality attributes of a given camera. And RAW performance directly affects JPEGs.

Would using a lower resolution mode in a high megapixel camera be much worse than having a lower resolution sensor to begin with? If so, why exactly? (And would it make a difference if exactly four larger pixels were combined into one smaller pixel?) If not, why complain about more megapixels?

There are so many people who hate more megapixels. I know that more megapixels decreases the size of each pixel (that is, image sensor element), thus allowing it to gather less light. I'm not disputing that.

But with the D800, I thought people would have learned that, at least in low to moderate ISO settings, more megapixels DOES translate into a sharper picture with more details. Some people are pretending that technological innovation with sensor sensitivity to light stopped in 2006. And if that were the case, then perhaps 6 megapixel sensors would be good enough.

I, for one, am glad that some companies are pushing the envelope. I don't like pixels just for their own sake, but it's clear that at the 24MP range, pictures taken in daytime will probably look better than with, say, a 12-16MP sensor of the same size. Then again, I take far more pictures in the daytime than in the middle of the night or in candle-lit rooms.

I'm by no means an expert and am following developments from my armchair along with almost everyone else, but isn't going from 16mp to 24mp a rather large jump? I'm not sure sensor technology has advanced quite THAT rapidly, and that's one of the major concerns I have over the D3200 (and perhaps other models that are soon to be released).

Are you kidding me? The D800 is 36 megapixels. That is triple the D700 and 12 more than the D3X. It has noise preformance that rivals the D4 and over all the best IQ of any DSLR. The sensor in the D800 is literally the best full frame sensor currently on the market not only for resolution but for dynamic range and noise preformance as well. Going from 16 megapixels to 24 is only 8 more. Have you even seen images made with the D3200? If you had you would have posted such nonsense. The D3200 has equal noise performance to the D7000 up to ISO 3200 and captures noticeably more details at all ISOs.

I don't think people hate more megapixels, I just think they know you can't really capitalize on those additional MP unless you are blowing up an image to a huge size. For 99% of the people out there, 16MP is plenty.

re: "I don't think people hate more megapixels, I just think they know you can't really capitalize on those additional MP unless you are blowing up an image to a huge size. For 99% of the people out there, 16MP is plenty."

That's not actually true bro. Even looking at images on screen, I can instantly tell the difference between what I shot with my D90 and what I shot with the D3200. The 24mp files have much more sharpness, much more detail.

This is going to become even more of a factor when retina and similar displays take over.

The better high ISO performance, and nearly 3 EV better DR than the 5D Mk III is one reason people objected so vociferously to DPRs equivalent rating of the D800 and 5D3.

As far as the D3200, I've downloaded countless full-sized samples and the IQ is impressive. People look at the poorly shot images in the D3200 review and think that is representative of the D3200s capabilities. It is not.

@Josh: Let's take an 8x10 photo for example. The human eye cannot discern ANY difference between 16mp and 24mp. NONE, ZERO. Both pictures will produce 350+ dpi. The 3200 is far and away a better camera than the D90(MP count notwithstanding). Maybe it's the 'placebo effect'...you WANT the picture to look sharper based on MP count alone, so you convince yourself that it is.

First we were talking about on a screen not prints and the fact remains that I can tell a differnce between a 24 megapixel image and a 16 megapixel image even when viewing it at a lot less than 100% on my 19 inch monitor. I am not the only one.

But lets get real for a second, whether you can see a differnce at a set size in a print or on a screen depends heavily on the subject matter photographed. You can't say you always can't tell a differnce or you always can tell a difference. Many factors are at play. In the end it doesn't' even matter at all. Even if you never see a differnce, you are not loosing anything having those megapixels available. Technology never advances if you just hold it to an arbitrary standard of what people "need" out of some kind of misguided elitism.

I am still relatively young but I can remember many things nobody "needed". Like Computers, The internet, E-mail,Cellphones, HD, monitors, Digital cameras, smart phones, camera phones.

Also some people who buy this camera will, without a doubt, use and see the benefit from the full resolution of the camera. Why limit them just because some people or even most people don't need it? What benefit can that possibly have other then making owners of higher end previous generation cameras feel better?

In a head to head comparison of my older 10MPX to my new 18MPX Canons. with camera noise suppression shut off, the 18MPX camera exhibited less noise at ISO 1600 than the 10MPX does at 800.

In post production noise reduction using Photoshop and Topaz Denoise, of images of the same scene same crop, the high MPX images required a lesser degree of filtration to supress noise than the 10 MPX image.

Finally, in post production sharpening , the 18MPX image required less sharpening to achieve optimal sharpness resulting in less enchancement of noise and fewer sharpening artifacts. In higher resolution images ,sharpening has a greater effect on details in proportion to its effect on noise in smooth low contrast areas. Conversely, in higher resolution images more sharpening can be applied before noise becomes objectionable.

When scaled down to match the 10 MPX print output, 8X12 @300PPI, the 18MPX prints are distinctly crisper and cleaner than those from the 10MPX.

Since the beginning of digital photography one of the most important commandments was ;"Thou shalt not waste pixels.". In other words, frame the image as close to the final cropping as possible, so as to avoid having to crop any pixels out.

With high MPX images, we can go ahead and crop the image and still make 8x10 prints or larger, without having to uprez.

Who needs a $12,000, 600mm lens when for less money you can get a 36MPX camera and a couple of great lenses and just crop the image on the rare occasions that 300mm just isn't enough.

Many photographers have gotten so used to cropping in camera and saving pixels that they have forgotten that once, long ago in a galaxy far far away, photographers shot film and cropped their images in the darkroom.

With more pixels we can throw away the "Thall shalt not waste pixels" commandment.

You can only crop your high MP image if the lens is able to resolve that detail. And to the above commenter who says they can discern between a 24 and 12 MP image, there is no way you can tell the difference. How big is your monitor? Are you sure you aren't just noticing differences in the cameras' settings? They are from different generations, years apart, they are obviously not going to produce the same kind of image.

I find this attitude silly considering the 5DII became the camera of choice among the majority of pro wedding, portrait, and event photographers even though except for resolution the D700 is better than the 5DII in every way. Especially in important areas like AF and dynamic range. It seems the majority of consumers at all levels want more, not less megapixels. Nikon has obvious learned this lesson even if they had to do it the hard way.

Interestingly Canon seems to have, perhaps erroneously, attributed the success of the 5DII to it's video feature which would explain the focus on video instead of sensor improvement their recent releases have had.

Only someone who doesn't understand the relationship between sensor size, focal length, perspective, angle of view, depth of field and optical resolution, digital noise and dynamic range would think that a camera phone with a 24mpx is equivelent to a DSLR.

because.. one can use an entry level with impressive image quality when a D800 is pointless to carry around.especially in hikes and trails.. its lighter and gets the job done with minimal effort. plus whats the harm in having more pixels when this D3200 is able to hold solid details even at higher ISO's compared to the existing lower mp models?

And don't say that image quality suffers, because that's not actually true. As someone who has owned D70, D90 & D3200, I can honestly say that image quality has increased drastically each time I have upgraded.

If the D3200 produced bad images, I would be the first one to be trashing this camera. But it seems like the main people trolling this camera are just butt hurt about megapixel count

I agree. The excellent 1.8 primes are putting the 1.4 versions to shame. Now Nikon is going to have to update their 1.4 primes as well because they are not worth the extra money anymore. I think this is one reason why they made a the 35mm 1.8 a DX lens and why they made a 28 1.8 instead of a 24mm 1.8. They didn't want a full holy quartet of cheap 1.8 primes so the 1.4 set looks more attractive.

I have not read anything about longer exposures image quality in the review. So I will state my experience once more: Even at base ISO exposures longer than a second result in severe hotpixels all over the place. I do not think that this is acceptable in a 2012 DSLR camera!It is even wore than on my Casio QV-5700 from 2002 that has two times the pixel density of the D3200 on its sensor.

Dear reviewers! I think you should test long exposure capabilities of these kinds of cameras since quite some amateurs love taking night shots!

Very poorly featured model lacking even the most basic functionality. It's shameful to have a DSLR in 2012 that can't even do exposure bracketing, or HSS. Has almost nothing a new user will need to get into photography, no DOF preview, poorly implemented live view, no wireless flash.

Yet the 24mp sensor seems to "cure all complaints" for some reason. Marketing over substance it is quite obvious that a new users will have no need for 24mp or anywhere near that. It's a sensor and nothing else.

Shame DPR could not give a critical review and dismissed all those points above.

Your definition of basic features is a bit too advanced ... Why dont you post a few alternative entry level DSLR models with these features to enlighten the new user who wishes to start photography straight away with exposure bracketing and wireless flash ?

I hardly call exposure bracketing "advanced"I would not expect all of that list maybe the CLS thing can be left off in this price.MLU in a 24mp DSLR is really a very basic requirement though.HSS is again bog standard from every maker bar Nikon

The Pentax K-x of 2009 had those features... and yes it was entry-level. in-camera focus motor, DOF preview, exposure bracketing, wireless flash and HSS sync with an external flash.

But if Nikon put that in the D3100 then it'll eat up into the Nikon D5000. So they left it out. And they left it out again for the D3200, because a D5100 may be coming out. Too many bodies, if you ask me.

It's not only the liveview performance, but weird liveview behavior is showkiller for me. I have a D700 and I'm sometimes cursing Nikon when I need LV for macro shots. It's purely terrible compared to Canon or Sony. They say D800 is better than d700 but still worse than 5DMarkII which is considered old now.If you are not using LV you should ignore DPR's comment, still it was useful to me.

As a saxophone teacher, when my students ask me to recommend a sax for them to purchase, I'll always suggest the best saxophone they can afford. But never do I suggest a synthesizer sax or a clarinet, even though technically they all play musical notes.

To push an ILC in a DSLR review is not only a random, from left field recommendation, the basis for which it is made - that most DSLR beginners compose with LiveView - is a faulty assumption. Unless you have your DSLR on a rig for video, LiveView is a secondary feature on a DSLR.

But the reviewer seems to be inserting his own personal preferences into a supposedly objective review. Sure slower LiveView performance have been criticized in previous DSLR reviews, but I don't ever remember a conclusion discounting a DSLR (one that Nikon obviously worked very hard on) for not having the same LiveView performance as an ILC.

Most review sites make comparisons between DSLRs and mirrorless ILCs, especially when reviewing entry-level models. This is simply because both kinds of camera are among the alternatives that a P&S upgrader is looking at. Many beginners don't even understand the difference between a DSLR and a mirrorless cam, or even know what a viewfinder is.You're looking at this from the point of view of an enthusiast, but the D3200 is (primarily) aimed at beginners, just as the E-PL3, GF5, NEX-C3, NX1000 etc. Why not compare them in a review, when most prospective buyers surely are choosing between them?

Also, a review is supposed to be someone's personal opinion about a product, based on user experience and tests. That's why reviewers sometimes reach different conclusions and make different recommendations. You shouldn't for a minute think that your own personal preferences are anything other than that. :)

The thing that is being missed is that regardless of how some people may use it, a DSLR is designed to be primarily used with the OVF and PDAF. The through the lens viewfinder is the whole point of the SLR design. That is why the Live view and CDAF isn't as good as it is on a mirrorless ILC and it's also why it doesn't matter that it is not as good and should not be considered a negative even when comparing the camera to a mirrorless ILCs. The DSLR simply is not designed to be used the same way they are.

Even raw beginners pick up a DSLR for the first time and look though the view finder. It never even occurs to them to use the LCD at first. I would say most people moving from a compact camera don't even realize a DSLR has live view unless they are told and don't assume or expect to use the lcd to shoot on a DSLR.

A more fair comparison would be to compare the DSLR's focusing using the PDAF to a mirrorless ILCs CDAF as that is how the two camera's are designed to be used.

Criticizing a DSLR because it's live view focusing is not as good as a Mirrorless ILCs live view focusing is like criticizing a corvette for not being as good at hauling cargo as a pickup truck. Sure they both could technically do it but one is designed for that purpose and one isn't.

A good music teacher would tell parents to rent used instruments, at least until it's clear whether the student really aspires to learn and practices regularly. Think of the musicians who started with battered pianos or third-hand stuff. Even then, there's no point in spending a lot if talent is modest. A student who mastered "soft" instruments and programs like Sibelius might develop more in-demand skills and have better employment prospects too.

I think it's a good point that someone upgrading from a point and shoot may wish to be aware of the options i.e. DSLR or mirrorless, the pros and cons of each.

I once bought a DSLR from a person who'd bought it without realising it was too complicated for what he needed.

Such comparisons are therefore helpful.

@Markie6,The advice you give is to someone with a certain level of competence in the subject while the reviewer is giving info which may be relevant to a beginner and I can't see anything wrong with that.The reviewer has the choice of comparing IQ or budget when comparing systems. He could have chosen the EM5 for IQ comparison but I have the feeling he was comparing prices.

Again their is nothing wrong with comparing the D3200 to a mirrorless ILC but you have to be fair about it. If you are going to take points away from the D3200 for it's live view focusing than you should be taking same away from the mirroless camera for having slower, less accurate, worse in low light, CDAF instead of the far Superior PDAF and for not having an optical viewfinder.

Just harpooning the DSLR because it's live view focusing, which frankly is an after thought in a DSLR, is slower is just being biased.

Of course there's a severe price to be paid for the MP increase... the results speak volumes about current generation sensor limitations & per pixel light gathering capabilities... If your main aim is to use this camera below ISO 800 you'll be fine... any higher and you'll be relegated to point & shoot IQ...

Nikon's marketing department might allege great advances in noise reduction algorithms and sensor design without compromising on IQ ... take it with a pinch of salt... its all a load of rubbish...

Having compared many files from the D3200 and the D7000 I can say they had identical noise preformance up to ISO 3200 with the D7000 taking a very slight lead a 6400. This is clear even using the compare tool in this very review. Also compare the D3200 to the D3100 and you will see they have the SAME amount of noise at a given ISO. In any event regardless of noise the D3200 is resolving more fine details than either camera at all ISOs. I had really hoped the D800 would finally put the ridiculous belief that more pixels=more noise to rest.

As for fps, do you really think any camera manufacture will have their entry level camera doing more then the minimum fps? FPS is one of the major incentives used to get people to move up a model or two in the line. Remember too that FPS is also limited by the physical design of the camera and not just the data processing speed. The 5D mark II sales vs the sales of the D700 proved that most people would rather have resolution vs more fps.

I agree, those jpg (at hi iso) are terrible !Chasseur d'image Magazine make the same statement, they give a note of 3/5 to the camera, they said something like "one of the worst jpg quality ever"The thread on Chasseur d'Image's forum about the test & jpg (in french, sorry.)http://www.chassimages.com/forum/index.php/topic,156777.0.htmlBUT, the tester says too that the sensor is very good, and raw are excellent.

You're way off base with that statement, Lars. While I am many of those who own pro-grade Nikkor glass my wife happens to own D3200 with this little cheap gem of a zoomer and shot with it every now an then, to my great surprise.

Before you bag something like you just did, I suggest you go and take your blinkers off and shoot with an open mind.

I wrote that with tongue firmly in cheek, but I stand by it from the perspective of someone considering the D3200 as a second body.

It should be clear from the context of the quote (which was meant partly in jest) that we were talking about a hypothetical situation in which someone with a collection of decent AF-S glass might consider the D3200 as a camera to run alongside a higher-end body.

After reading all these comments, I feel that (for the sake of consistency of the DPR reviews—and eventually—creditability of this site) the reviewers should re-write the conclusion part and omit the LiveView AF comparisons to mirrorless cameras. So, just compare apples to apples (like in the case of scorings, cameras within the same category).

Also, statements of the kit lens's inability to resolve all 24MP without evidence are not very scientific. Photozone.de wrote in the verdict of the test of 18-55 VR, that:

"…there's not really much to complain about its performance regarding center sharpness, CAs and also vignetting. On the current high resolution sensors however the border and corners resolution falls a bit behind."

His points are really irrelevant. He is quoting other sites and making claims about a lens tested on a different camera with a different sensor (like photozone), but DPR had the cameras for 3 months. They took hundreds maybe thousands of photos. There is no need to change the conclusion, which is just an opinion anyway, to make fanboys happy.

Disagree. People compare between these camera's. So what are the pro's and what are the cons? Not different from comparing DSLRs IQ with mirrorless ones and say that CDAF is still not as good for wildlife etc. So people know what to buy or are helped a bit in the right direction.

@ashwins: DPR don't place DSLRs and mirrorless cameras in different categories. The categories are based on the level of user the cameras are aimed at, not on their viewfinder technology.The category where you find D3200 is "Entry Level Interchangeable Lens Camera / DSLR", where you'll also find the likes of Sony NEX-C3 and Panasonic GF3.

Real question is should every MILC be docked points because it has smaller sensor than d800, it has no OVF and it is not as fast focusing as the best dslrs (when they are using ovf). I would say DPR should do so if they are highly bent on criticizing a dslr for being a dslr.

"Real question is should every MILC be docked points because it has smaller sensor than d800, it has no OVF and it is not as fast focusing as the best dslrs (when they are using ovf). I would say DPR should do so if they are highly bent on criticizing a dslr for being a dslr."

Question,Is the d800 an entry level camera?I believe the MILC and 3200 fall into the entry level category so there is no point in comparing scores in this case with the 800 as Revenant has already pointed out.

Bottom line is that if you can't shoot good photos with this camera, then it reflects more on your lack of photography skills then it does on the camera equipment.

The low end DSLRs across the board from Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax, etc., are all very good machines and it's a matter of preference. Your lenses are much more important than which body you use at this point.

If you are pixel peeping then you're probably a camera collector and not an actual photographer.

The Pentax K-30 just received a "Highly Recommended" from ePhotozine today.And they don't once mention the Lumix G3 or any other ILC preferring to not compare oranges to apples as this review does liberally and somewhat puzzlingly.

A DSLR compared to an ILC like the G3 is irrelevant, and to a EPL-3 even more so.

But of course the K-30 is an entry level camera. It's a definite step up from the D3200 and T3i in features, i.e. 100% Pentaprism VF, weather sealing, 6 fps, etc. But Pentax is billing it as their lower end model. It has big performance at it's price point. I have a K-30 as a backup and love it almost as much as my main body.

I disagree with your statement. Even if it may be apples to oranges to some, it's not to others. I think DPR is taking the right approach, as mirrorless cameras gain momentum.

Reviews are generally made to help people choose a product. And when it comes to choosing a product past the point and shoot level, a mirrorless ILC camera is just as viable as a DSLR.

What really differentiates an entry-level SLR from any other ILC other than an optical viewfinder? You ultimately upgrade to an SLR for image quality and the ability to take a greater variety of shots, and MILC cameras are equally viable for this.

Besides, ePhotozine does review MILC cameras and compare them to SLRs. Check their conclusion in the NX1000 review, for example.

Agree with panilopez: this is about OVF vs EVF mainly. A bit about phase detect AF vs contrast detect AF as well. But from the point of view of a user looking at improving the quality of his/her pictures vault, both architectures offer a viable path. I find it therefore perfectly ok to compare the 3200 to the MiLCs from the IQ and performance point of views, as they provide very similar services.

Personally, after genuinely trying to move to an EVF-based system (nex7), I am now completely convinced I am an OVF guy. EVF causes me too much grief, due to my vision, the complex corrections I require, and the type of glasses and sunglasses i wear, which interfere with sensors and reduce ability to see the scene on sunny days.

Based on that fundamentalI design preference, if I was restarting this costly journey from scratch now, the 3200 would certainly be in my short list even after reading the DPR review. It is a pretty fair review.

@markie6,question,Is there an inaccuracy with the review?Is your only problem with the comparison with other cameras?Also,if you don't like the reviews written here you could always choose not to read them.

It's obvious there is an issue with the lens, yet they plowed ahead with the review anyway. When researching a backup body, I downloaded hundreds of D3200 samples and none looked anywhere near as bad as the review samples here.

That's probably the case regarding the development of the sensor, but they are still quite different sensors.

If you want to see the difference, underexpose a D3200 image five stops when you take it and then push it back up five stops in post. Do the same with a a77 / NEX7. The results are very different regarding noise, banding, and dynamic range. There's a thread somewhere in the DPreview Nikon Dxxxx forums about this. Don't recall that either one was "better" just very different.

Also, peep some comparison photos where an AA filter will show up; the Nikon version has a much stronger AA filter than the Sony version (hence the "soft" results when viewed at 100%).

The DXOMark scores are practically the same in dynamic range and colour depth. In the DXOMark article as well they have written that its a Sony sensor but tweaked to Nikon's specifications.

I have strong doubts that two sensors can have such similar performance from two different senor manufacturers and I would put more faith in what a professional site like DXOMark says rather than some user tests.

In any case its completely irrelevant nor worth discussing who made the sensor. The final performance is what counts and it seems the D3200 can deliver quite well. Whether Samsung, Sony or Nikon made the sensor doesn't matter as much as the camera wearing a Nikon badge in the end.

Nikon cant make sensors, they dont have fabs. They would need to hire some company to make it for them. As far as I know, probably only Aptina could do similar sensor, but I strongly doubt, cause you cant just go and say "we want 24 mpix APS-C sensor with this specs". And considering amount of sensors needed (Im pretty sure D3200 will sell like hot cakes) I dont think they would be able to do it and satisfy that needed amount.

I think its Sony sensor which was tweaked to Nikon specs and they make special batches only for them. Its not first and neither last sensor thats re-designed or designed by Nikon and made by Sony.

A camera body is only as good as its lens. As a Canon user I admit Nikon makes a technically superior camera body, it just can't compete with Canon lenses. This is the only thing keeping me from switching to Nikon.

lol. Canon can't build a decent wide angle. The 1.2 lenses are painfully slow and near impossible to focus. And people go on about the quality of a single f/4 zoom. In the DPReview forums on here, the first lenses to get recommended in the Canon forums are Sigma and Zeiss - says it all really.

That's it? Then you acknowledge Canon's lens superiority in all other aspects, I assume. Canon does have weaknesses, but overall they are the best. BTW, the 16-35 is a damn fine lens. If that's Canon's one weakness, then it's a very minor one.

@russbarnes: you mention having difficulty with the 1.2 lens, I understand your frustration. 1.2 lenses have INCREDIBLY shallow depth of field, and focus can be difficult if you are shooting wide open. I think any but the very best Zeiss lenses will exhibit this problem with such a wide aperture.

@intensity: I gave Nikon the edge in sensor technology in part because they have a larger megapixel count. Unfortunately their lenses are not up to par just yet. I believe Canon lenses could take advantage of that technology, but there are no APS-C camera sensors with that just yet. Maybe if you paired a Canon lens with a Nikon body...

Actually canon is behind in all aspects on nikon, in my opinion. They are beating a dead horse with that 18 Mp sensor, which is inferior to the sony/nikon tweaked sensors, the 5D3 is not up to the D800 in IQ, their latest lenses are much more expensive than the nikon ones in my countrry (24-70,70-200), and the only lenses canon users still brag about over the nikon lenses are the 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and 70-200 f4. Yes, canon also makes a 17 mm TS which nikon does not, and the tele lenses in canon mount have been superb over the years, and still are, but nikon have some new superb tele lenses as well. Choosing between canon and nikon these days is not what it used to be when you had to choose between the 5D and the D200, or the 1Ds mk2 and the D2x, which was a walkover for canon. Now they are evenly matched in the body area, with a plus for nikon IMHO, as far as the lenses go, the holy trinity from nikon is outstanding and their latest 1.4 primes are stellar stuff.

I never said Nikon wasn't good, I just said their[Canon's] lenses are better(which they are). As far as 'holy trinity'...it's the L series 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200(all f/2.8). NOTHING Nikon produces can beat that group of lenses. Canon is more expensive FOR A REASON.

My main goal was to point out that Nikon produces a superior sensor, IMO, but that their lenses can't take advantage of the increased resolution. Canon lenses very well may be able to meet the potential of the Nikon sensor. Unfortunately they're different manufacturers.

What makes you think that Nikon lenses can't meet the resolution demands of the 24 MP sensor? I think there are plenty of Nikon lenses capable of outresolving that sensor (and cheap ones too, if you consider primes).

"While very good at the longer focal lengths (with the exception of 18 mm wide open), the corner resolution at 10 mm is very poor wide open and the lens needs to be stopped down to f/8 to reach good resolution figures (but only just "good")."

I kinda feel like the "awards" are losing their meaning. Silver award? Sure its a capable camera but it seems to me that the awards should only be awarded when the cameras actually achieve something unique, or outstanding.

Take it as primary school awards - everyone (in turns) is bound to get one at some stage.... BUT - if DPR fails to give any, I would seriously think if it would be worth having that one...these guys are just too nice (sweet)

Detailed review as always - BUT, right at the start there is unnecessary comparison to G3, which does not really classify as "its peers" as it even remotely is not. Without stopping at that point, the reviewer than adds that Nex offers APS-C sensor in not much larger body (and it again should not be classified as "peer"apart from pixel count. Perhaps it needs to clarified here - D3200 is not a mirrorless camera. There is no need to mention double IR ports so many times and all info about battery could be accompanied with only one image. Bracketing (the lack of) should be mentioned, as it appears D3200 continues tradition of Nikon's hot Matrix Metering. Finally, it really would not hurt to post at least one sample why the supplied kit lens is deemed as "unsuitable" for the camera it comes with. Thanks for the review!

Thanks Lars - I saw the samples and checked quite a few in original size. I agree results from 18-55 kit aren't impressive across the board and are very (very) soft. But the only portrait with 17-55/2.8 was shot at ISO 12800, hardly comparable to others detail-wise....

You read reviews, generally, to help isolate what product to buy. And you buy an entry level SLR because it provides better quality than a point and shoot. If a Mirrorless camera can provide equal or better image quality, why should it not be compared?

Should Sony SLT cameras not be compared either, as they don't offer an optical viewfinder, the defining feature of an SLR?

Cameras are ultimately judged by two things, their image quality(resolution, DR, color reproduction, etc), and the ability to get the shot(focusing speed, burst rate, buffer, etc).

If a mirrorless camera can compete with an SLR in IQ(they can), and the ability to get the shot(they can), then by all means they should be compared. If I'm going to recommend a camera, I'm going to recommend what I think is the best at a given price point for a given usage. Nowadays, mirrorless is a viable option.

Funny how people are complaining about Nikon cameras getting low or average scores. D3200 got 73%, which means Very Good in DPR's scoring system. This is the second highest score in the entry-level category, with only the NEX-C3 getting a higher score (74%).Likewise, a lot of people complained about the rating for the D800. It got 83% (D800E got 84%), which means Outstanding! What's there to complain about? And how is this evidence of an anti-Nikon bias?Just read the reviews, agree or disagree if you like, but quit the complaining about the final scores being too low or too high, especially when you don't even seem to know (or care) what they mean, or how they are calculated.On a personal note, IMHO, it's better to understate things than doing the opposite. I always get suspicious of people who are generous with their superlatives. The highest recommendation for me would be: "not bad, not bad at all". :D

According to the review there is no added value of 24 MPix in entry-level DSLR segment: cheap kit zoom cannot "feed" the sensor and pricey fast lenses are not typical companions to a cheap entry-level camera. Apart from cropping there is no use for such high pixel count.Likewise from noise comparison it is quite clear that the level of noise is higher than the noise from old Pentax K-r, which IMO confirms tha fact that high pixel density produces usually more noise. The progress in sensor development is outweighed by doubled pixel density in comparison to 12 MPix K-r.

Too true. Nikon are keeping the SNR constant whilst increasing MP. Would much prefer they keep the MP constant and improve SNR.On the DXO site one will see that the D800/D7000 just manage to meet the 'good' 38 dB SNR mark at the pixel level (screen mode) and base ISO. In 'downsampled' (print) mode the D800 SNR is 38 dB at a modest 400 ISO or so.